Gospel of Mark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.14.208.190 (talk) at 07:04, 20 September 2006 (→‎Content: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Books of the
New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts
Four Evangelists
Lukan Acts
Epistles and Apocalypse
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
Apocalypse
Authorship
Related topics
Gospel of Mark
Chapters

The Gospel of Mark is traditionally the second New Testament Gospel, ascribed to Mark the Evangelist. It narrates the life of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his resurrection, but it concentrates particularly on the last week of his life. Usually dated between 60 and 80, it is regarded by most modern scholars as the earliest of the canonical gospels, contrary to the traditional view of the Augustinian hypothesis. It is one of the Synoptic Gospels.

Content

The contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows:

Authorship and Provenance

A page from the Gospel of Mark, Book of Durrow (7th century).

The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea:

This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.[1]

Irenaeus confirmed this tradition,[2] as did Origen,[3] Tertullian,[4] and others. Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the second century, reported an ancient tradition that Mark was urged by those who had heard Peter's speeches in Rome to write what the apostle had said.[5] Following this tradition, scholars have generally thought that this gospel was written at Rome. Among recent alternate suggestions are Syria, Alexandria, or more broadly any area within the Roman Empire.

It has been argued that there is an impending sense of persecution in the Gospel, and that this could indicate it being written to sustain the faith of a community under such a threat. As the main Christian persecution at that time was in Rome under Nero, this has been used to place the writing of the Gospel in Rome.[6] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Latinized vocabulary employed in Mark (and in neither Matthew nor Luke) shows that the Gospel was written in Rome.[7] Also cited in support is a passage in 1 Peter: The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.[8]

However, the Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. Critics argue that the Latinisms in the Greek of Mark could have stemmed from many places throughout the Western Roman empire. Additionally, the passage in 1 Peter is considered inconclusive, Mark being a common name in the first century. Furthermore, some scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark contains mistakes concerning Galilean topography, supporting that the author, or his sources, were unfamiliar with the actual geography of that area, unlike the historical Peter. Finally, some scholars dispute the connection of the gospel with persecution, identified with persecution at Rome, asserting that persecution was widespread, albeit sporadic beyond the borders of the city of Rome.

It is generally agreed among contemporary scholars that the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel written, where the traditional view, popular amongst the Church fathers and especially Augustine of Hippo, holds that Mark was composed second, after the Gospel of Matthew (see: Augustinian hypothesis). This assertion of Markan Priority is closely associated with the Two-Source Hypothesis, Q hypothesis, and the Farrer hypothesis (see below).

Date

The text of the Gospel itself furnishes us with no clear information as to the time that it was written. Mark 13:1-2, known as the "little apocalypse", remains a controversial passage regarding the dating of the text. Exegesis is often employed to show correspondences between the passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70. The passage predicts that the Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus.[9]

If Jesus' prophetic remarks do indeed concern the destruction of the Temple, then two options appear concerning the text's date. Either Jesus correctly predicted the event, which would allow for a date of composition prior to 70, or the events were put into the mouth of Jesus after the fact by the Gospel's author, entailing a post 70 dating of the text. Because the text does not observe the fulfillment of this prophetic passage, some of those accepting the passage's veracity argue that the text must date before 70.

Two papyrologists, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark Mark 6:52–53; thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68. Most papyrologists, however, consider this identification of the fragmentary text, and its supposition that early Christians lived at Qumran, to be dubious.

The majority of moderate, liberal and conservative scholars assign Mark a date between 60 and 80. There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. Tradition associated the text's composition with the persecution of Nero, which would allow for a date c. 65.[10] Additionally, tradition held that Mark was written after the death of Paul and Peter.[11] Some scholars, contrasting 13:1-2 with more specific passages in Luke and Matthew, hesitate to assign a date later than 70-73, the latter year being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked.

Audience

The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g. Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author: e.g. ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36).

Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes detailed use of the Old Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18–20); Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.

The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were already surfacing around 40-60 BCE and the Gospel of Mark came at a time where Christian faith was rising. Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes:

Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66-70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus. [12]

Mark and the Synoptic Problem

The first three, or synoptic, gospels are closely related. For example, out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with both Matthew and Luke (known as the "double tradition" material), 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone, and at most 51 peculiar to itself, according to one reckoning. The commonality goes beyond the same selection of what stories about Jesus to tell but extends to the use of many of the same words in how they are told. The synoptic problem is an investigation into whether and how the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke used each other or common sources.

Most researchers into the synoptic problem have concluded that Mark was written first and used by Matthew and Luke ("Markan priority"), as first proposed by G. Ch. Storr in 1786 and popularized by the critical scholarship that began in the mid-19th century. Another hypothesis known as the Augustinian hypothesis follows the traditional view that Matthew was the first Gospel, followed by Mark and then Luke. The other major alternative to Markan priority is the Griesbach hypothesis, which holds that Mark was written third as an abbreviating combination of Matthew and Luke.

There are two solutions to the synoptic problem that are based on Markan priority. Firstly, the Farrer hypothesis, that Mark wrote first followed by Matthew then Luke, each writer using the work of his predecessors. Secondly, the more dominant Two-Source hypothesis (2SH) posits that the gospels of Matthew and Luke also draw extensively from a now-lost "sayings" collection—called Q after German Quelle, "source". Most supporters of the 2SH do not think there is a literary connection between Mark and Q,[13] but a couple of active scholars, such as Burton Mack[14] have argued that Mark had some knowledge of Q.

To further complicate the matter, in recent years there have been various hypotheses postulating other sources for Mark, generally proposed to explain certain difficulties with the two source hypothesis. It is argued that Mark gave an order and plot to the material found in his sources, and also added some parenthetical commentary.[15]. Lastly, one scholar, Michael A. Turton, has argued that the Gospel of Mark is Midrash, or a sermonic commentary of the Tanakh (Old Testament). According to Turton, Mark contains over 150 citations or allusions to the Tanakh, with the bulk of the Gospel episodes being derived from stories of First and Second Kings about Elijah and Elisha.[16]

Losses and early editing

Mark is the shortest gospel. An axiom adopted by some readers, though not by professionals generally, is: "A shorter version generally means an earlier form." Judicious editing of unwanted material, however, may also produce a shorter document.

Manuscripts, both scrolls and codices, tend to lose text at the beginning and the end, not unlike a coverless paperback in a backpack. These losses are characteristically unconnected with excisions. For instance, Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Most manuscripts of Mark, including the highly regarded 4th-century manuscript of Mark, Codex Vaticanus, has the text "son of God",[17] but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus (01, א) (4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, Θ) (9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28 (11th century). A further manuscript, P45, is 3rd century, but its opening portion has not survived.

Interpolations may not be editorial, either. It is a common experience that glosses written in the margins of manuscripts get incorporated into the text as copies are made. Any particular example is open to dispute of course, but one may take note of Mark Mark 7:16, "Let anyone with ears to hear, listen," which is not found in early manuscripts.

Ending

There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was part of the autograph, or if it was added later. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[18] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending", is included after 16:7, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)

The third-century theologian Origen quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there, but this is an argument from silence. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[19] Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, where it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death.[20] Some of those who believe that the 16:8 ending was intentional suggest a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the identification of this book as an example of closet drama.

Secret Gospel of Mark

A Mar Saba letter ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, copied into a book at the Mar Saba monastery and published by Morton Smith in 1973, contains references to a previously unknown Secret Gospel of Mark that gives information about the gospel of Mark's possible Roman origin. While most Clement scholars agree that the letter sounds authentic, a number of scholars remain unconvinced that an early Secret Mark existed, asserting that the "Mar Saba letter" is a modern-day forgery. Where and if it should fit in the history of the gospel of Mark is still debated.

Characteristics

Unlike both Matthew and Luke, Mark does not offer any information about the life of Jesus before he begins his ministry, including neither the nativity nor a genealogy. The detailed narrative is divided into three sections: the Galilean ministry (including the surrounding regions of Phoenicia, Decapolis, and Cæarea Philippi), the Judean ministry and the journey to Jerusalem, and the events in Jerusalem.

Other characteristics unique to Mark

  • Son of Man is the major title used of Jesus in Mark (Mark 2:10, 2:28; 8:31; 9:9, 9:12, 9:31; 10:33, 10:45; 14:21, 14:41). Many people have seen that this title is a very important one within Mark’s Gospel, and it has important implications for Mark’s Christology. Jesus raises a question that demonstrates the association in Mark between ‘Son of Man’ (compare Daniel 7:13-14) and the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 – “How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt?” (9:12b, NRSV) Yet this comparison is not explicit; Mark’s Gospel creates this link between Daniel and Isaiah, and applies it to Christ. It’s postulated that this is because of the persecution of Christians; thus, Mark’s Gospel encourages believers to stand firm (Mark 13:13) in the face of troubles.
  • The testing of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days contains no discourse between Jesus and Satan and only here are wild beasts mentioned (Mark 1:12–13).
  • The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Not present in either Matthew 12:1–8 and Luke 6:1–5.
  • Jesus' family say he is out of his mind, see also Rejection of Jesus (Mark 3:21).
  • Among the synoptic gospels, Mark contains the smallest number (12) of parables.
  • Only Mark counts the possessed swine; there are about two thousand (Mark 5:13).
  • Only place in the New Testament Jesus is addressed as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3).
  • Only place that Jesus himself is called a carpenter (Mark 6:3) -- in Matthew he is called a carpenter's son (Matthew 13:55)
  • Only place that both names his brothers and mentions his sisters (Mark 6:3 -- Matthew has a slightly different name for one brother and no mention of sisters Matthew 13:55)
  • Two consecutive healing stories of women, make use of the number twelve (Mark 5:25 and Mark 5:42).
  • The taking of a staff and sandals (Mark 6:8–10) are prohibited in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3 and Luke 10:4.
  • The longest version of the story of Herodias' daughter's dance and the beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29).
  • Mark's literary cycles:
  • 6:30–44 - Feeding of the five thousand;
  • MarkTemplate:Bibleverse with invalid book - Crossing of the lake;
  • MarkTemplate:Bibleverse with invalid book - Dispute with the Pharisees;
  • MarkTemplate:Bibleverse with invalid book - Discourse about food defilement.
Then:
  • 8:1–9 - Feeding of the four thousand;
  • 8:10 - Crossing of the lake;
  • 8:11–13 - Dispute with the Pharisees;
  • 8:14–21 - Incident of no bread and discourse about the leaven of the Pharisees.

Notes

  1. ^ Papias, quoted in Eusebius History of the Church, trans. G.A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1965). 3.39.15 / pg 103-104.
  2. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1, also 10:6.
  3. ^ cited in Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14
  4. ^ Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5
  5. ^ cited in Eusebius, History of the Church 6:14
  6. ^ Brown et al. p. 596-597.
  7. ^ e.g. σπεκουλατορα ("soldier of the guard", 6:27, NRSV), ξεστων (Greek corruption of sextarius ("pots", 7:4), κοδραντης ("penny", 12:42, NRSV), κεντυριων ("centurion", 15:39, Mark 15:44–45).
  8. ^ 1 Peter 5:13
  9. ^ Josephus, Jewish War VI; note that the Western Wall, which still stands, was not a part of the Temple proper, but rather part of a larger structure on which the Temple and other buildings stood.
  10. ^ Brown et al. p. 596-597.
  11. ^ Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses 3.1.1
  12. ^ Dennis R MacDonald, Early Christian Literature
  13. ^ e.g. Udo Schnelle (1998 p 195), who wrote that "a direct literary connection between Mark and Q must be regarded as improbable" and looks to connections through the oral tradition. see: [1]
  14. ^ Burton Mack (1993 pp 177-9); he discusses "a myriad of interesting points at which the so-called overlaps between Mark and Q show Mark's use of Q material for his own narrative designs. see: [2].
  15. ^ e.g. Daniel J. Harrington, who wrote, "Mark had various kinds of traditions at his disposal: sayings, parables, controversies, healing stories and other miracles, and probably a passion narrative. Some of these traditions may have been grouped: controversies (Mark 2:1–3:6), seed parables (Mark 4:1–34), miracles (Mark 4:35–5:43), etc. Mark gave an order and a plot to these sayings and incidents, connected them with bridge passages, and added parenthetical comments for the sake of his readers." Brown et al. 597
  16. ^ [3] This is an uncommon point of view.
  17. ^ Greek grammar and article use allow an English translation of the Son of God, a son of God, or merely Son of God.
  18. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. pp. pg.&#91, citation needed&#93, . ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
  19. ^ Willker, Wieland. "A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels. Vol. 2b: The various endings of Mk" (PDF). TCG 2006: An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 4th ed. Retrieved 2006-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)
  20. ^ Price, Christopher. "The Missing Ending of the Gospel of Mark". Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism: Answering Skeptics. ChristianCADRE.org. Retrieved 2006-07-06.

References

  • Ehrman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins, 2005.
  • Brown, R., et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, 1990.
  • Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition, Harper & Row, 1963.
  • Dewey, J., “The Survival of Mark’s Gospel: A Good Story?”, JBL 123.3 (2004) 495-507.
  • Grant, Robert M., A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Harper and Row, 1963: Chapter 8: The Gospel Of Mark
  • Holmes, M. W., "To Be Continued... The Many Endings of Mark", Bible Review 17.4 (2001).
  • Mack, Burton L., 1993. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian origins, HarperSanFrancisco.
  • McKnight, E. V., What is Form Criticism?, 1997.
  • Perrin, N., What is Redaction Criticism?
  • Perrin, Norman & Duling, Dennis C., The New Testament: An Introduction, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1982, 1974
  • Schnelle, Udo, 1998. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (M. Eugene Boring translator), Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
  • Stephen Neill and Tom Wright,The Interpretation of The New Testament 1861-1986, Oxford University Press, 1990, 1989, 1964
  • Telford, W. (ed.), The Interpretation of Mark, Fortress Press, 1985.
  • Tuckett, C. (ed), The Messianic Secret, Fortress Press, 1983

See also

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Online translations of the Gospel of Mark:

Related articles:

Preceded by Books of the Bible Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Mark&oldid=76744693"